— Sen. Ben Nelson, confessing his inexperience with debit cards to reporters Tuesday. Asked about ATM fees, the Nebraska Democrat says he only pays with cash or credit cards and confessed to being “frugal.”

Then the OWH picked up on it to quiz Nebraska’s senior (citizen) Senator on his use of ATMs and credit cards.

Nelson noted that, “But I could learn how to do it just like I’ve . . . I swipe to get my own gas, buy groceries. I know about the holograms…I mean, I’m not without some skills.”

The OWH didn’t follow up on Nelson’s original claim that he uses credit cards instead of debit cards, because he’s frugal — missing out on the point that credit cards charge interest while debit cards are just a plastic version of cash. Ah well, we’ll assume he has a staffer that can educate him on this machine of the little people.

While Mike Johanns said he has only used at ATM “fewer than five times” in his life — well at least he was familiar with the concept. But is the ATM really that new fangled?

Why those crazy kids with their ATMs and their Walkmans and their Vanilla Ice.

Congressman Lee Terry is continuing to hammer his opponent, state Senator Tom White on White’s support of the ObamaCare Health Care Reform.

Recently the Congressional Budget Office stated that the cost of the new law will jump by $115 BILLON, based on requirements for new IRS cost and other new government programs and services.

Terry is asking White how White would propose funding these new costs.

“Tom White supported the healthcare legislation while I did not. The cost of this initiative has now suddenly jumped by $115 billion. My opponent needs to step forward and tell us if he is willing to cut other programs to pay for this new spending or raise taxes to cover it. Either way, he owes us an explanation.”

Not to worry though White campaign. Our guess is that this is the last time in the campaign that Lee Terry will mention Tom White’s support of the new health care law….

59 comments

Lee knows that the Congressional Budget Office clarified that of the $115 billion mentioned, $86 billion represents a continuation of programs that existed before the health care law was passed (e.g. $39 billion for Indian health services). Of the remainder, $19 billion is possible spending on programs created by the health care law (Congress would still have to pass a new law that actually spends this money first) and $10 billion in administrative costs.

And don’t forget that the health care law had a net deficit reduction of $138 billion, so even if Lee’s lies were true (which they’re not) the law would still be in the black.

Apparently the Terry machine is a little behind or considerably ahead. Got a knock at the door last night and was handed a Terry mailer and asked to vote for him. The Primary date was blocked off with a see through label.– charles

You say the healthcare bill is still in the black. Was that before or after the doctor fix?

And what about the $500 BILLION they're taking from Medicare to pay for the healthcare bill that they're really not taking from Medicare? Or are they? Didn't the CBO projection that put this crapfest of a healthcare plan in the black assume that $500 BILLION would come from Medicare? Is it?

What about the fact that the benefits don't kick in for 4 years? Aren't the people who wrote this bill gaming the system by averaging 10 years of payments for the bill against only 6 years of benefits in order to claim deficit neutrality? What happens the next 10 years?

Pat, only in your little Democrat dream world can you start a massive new entitlement program and have it actually save money. Out in the real world where the rest of us live, this thing is a gigantic budget bomb.

There's one born every minute…The health care law will produce a deficit reduction of $138 billion? You're either an idiot or smoking crack. The actual costs will be at least 10 times what the CBO projects, as evidenced by their historical failure to accurately project the real cost of any major entitlement program. But then again, anyone who would support expanded/new entitlement programs is likely to be a Democrat Obama voter…the very definition of clueless. BTW, the only thing the Benator is frugal with is his own money. He's the stereotypical drunken sailor with taxpayer's money.

Who the hell doesn't use an ATM? How do you get cash? I wonder if Ben & Johanns go to the senate cafeteria, whip out their checkbook and ask if they can write it for $10 over. I simply cannot fathom that in 2010 you don't use an ATM or debit card. These guys have no clue how 95% of americans live. And these are the guys who claim that there going to fix our economy? We're all screwed.

Its 2010 not 1987. And I know there are banks, I use them too . But just because theres still newspapers doesn't mean I shouldn't read news online.

And my grandma hasn't ever used the internet but I expect my leaders and representatives to be a little more in touch with technology and society than her. Especially since they have the power to regulate industries.

I don't know. I think you're reaching on this ATM thing. I haven't heard anyone claiming that ATMs are tanking the economy. In addition, you can use credit cards just about everywhere in the big city. I have a hard time doing anything but shrugging my shoulders on this item, but I do appreciate you changing the subject from the last post.

London: India-born Scot John Shepherd-Barron, inventor of the Automated Teller Machine (ATM), has died after a short illness, aged 84.

He is survived by his wife, three sons and six grandchildren.

The businessman, who worked for a printing firm at the time, came up with the concept of a self-service cash dispenser in 1965 while lying in the bath after getting to his bank too late to withdraw money.

“It struck me that there must be a way I could get my own money, anywhere in the world or the United Kingdom. I hit upon the idea of a chocolate bar dispenser, but replacing chocolate with cash,” he had said in a 2007 interview.

If you have very good credit score, credit cards can actually be beneficial. Some cards offer a certain percentage back on purchases, an amount that can actually negate the surcharge for having the card.

Thank God we are having a good honest debate on the practices of ATM users. It's not like there are any issues like illegal immigration being discussed by our state legislators. Like Janssen wanting to bring AZ's immigration law to NE essentially.

No money will be taken out of Medicare. Period. No politician, when it comes down to it, has the junk to do it. It's always been proposed but the program is too popular despite its inefficiencies. For all purposes, you should add the $500B in Medicare cuts to the cost of the bill in its entirety.

I concur with the last anon- Tom White does seem to be pretty bad at getting his position on most issues easy for the public to see.

Have you seen his website? Nobody is expecting a platform analysis like McCain's or Obama's, but a bit of a platform would be nice so we know the difference between him and Terry is.

Terry's positions are just a paragraph long on his site, but it's pretty apparent what you're getting. White has a short bio and how to donate or volunteer. I think overall White would be a much better candidate if his campaign were run better, but since most Dems in NE can't, they're gonna get spanked this fall, save for a few legislative seats.

The “doc fix” is a separate issue from the expansion in coverage and insurance reforms provided in the health care law. In 1997, Republicans passed a law that was meant to cut doctor payments. But nobody actually wanted to do that so Congress began delaying the cuts. Republicans did it 2003, 2005, and 2006. Democrats did it 2007 and 2008. So the “doc fix” is actually a bipartisan thing that would have happened with or without the health care law. Why should it count against the total cost of the bill?

“money from Medicare” –

It’s a reduction in the rate of growth in the Medicare program, not a cut to current budget or benefits. From factcheck dot org:

“Whatever you want to call them, it’s a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits. It’s true that those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage’s private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits; the bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare. The Democrats’ bill also boosts certain benefits: It makes preventive care free and closes the "doughnut hole," a current gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors.”

“Aren't the people who wrote this bill gaming the system by averaging 10 years of payments for the bill against only 6 years of benefits in order to claim deficit neutrality?” –

No. Google “ezra klein 10 years of taxes for only 6 years of benefits” and look at the chart in the first result. The spending and taxes are actually pretty balanced throughout all 10 years. CBO actually estimates that the bill will save more in the second decade than in the first.

You’re welcome for the facts from the real world. You should visit sometime. It’s a much better place than Fox News fantasy land.

You're criticizing people for watching Fox News when you're referring us to Ezra Klein?!?!?! You have got to be kidding me.

Perhaps you'd like to google CBO report and obamacare and look at the helpful little graph they show. Spending for Obamacare doesn't really start to kick in for 3 more years while the taxes kick in beginning Jan 1. Despite that, in 10 years, Obamacare is expected to run a $65 billion deficit each year. But, hell, compared to $1600 billion deficit this year, who cares?

Sweeper – Kudos for you for not going overboard on this one as the OWH so embarassingly did.

One note: its actually cheaper to use credit cards for your spending than it is to use an ATM.

First – the float – an ATM automatically deducts from your balance immediately – instantaneously ending interest accumulation (not debating the meagerness of bank interest but if you have millions in the account as Sen. Ben does, it adds up.)

Second – credit cards don't chage you 2, 3, 4, or $5 per transaction to access your own money.

Third – if you pay your credit card balances off every month there is no interest charge. Considering Nelson's notorious frugality – Its a safe bet to assume he does. Also, if you manage your cards this way many offer points or miles that add up to free stuff – some even offer actual cash back.

So you see – Nelson actually has it right. ATM cards are exepensive. He doesn't pay the fees. He gets his cash from a real person. He isn't out of touch as the OWH desperately tried to portray him. He's actually got the system figured out.

Most Americans – myself included – have accepted outrageous ATM fees as a cost for convenience. We don't think about the $3 we pay to get $40 of our own money. But I looked at my statements today – I spend more than 300 a year on ATM fees. Outrageous. Good for Nelson for not paying the banks to access his own money. Maybe we all could learn.

ATM??? A machine that dispenses money??? Like the Benator when I want some folding money, I just call my friend, the CEO, at the bank and they messenger it over to me. Why would I ever touch some machine used by the unwashed masses. Unlike the Benator, I don't have lobbyists handing me those super convenient envelopes full of folding money. Maybe someday…

You want to be a butt and go after Nelson cause he doesn't use an ATM, let me point you to a story about Mike Johanns a few years ago before he quit his job as Ag Sec. He talked about cleaning the house, when going shopping with the wife, he's point out he food pyramids on the cereal boxes like some type of special kid, and his wife would give him an allowance of $20 a weeks for spending money. Seriously? That freaks me out more than a Senator who's just like my parents – they make a trip to the bank every Saturday, and don't use ATM's either!

The chart is CBO's – EK's page just happened to have fewer pages to sort through to get to the chart I wanted to reference. (It's page 4 of 15 in the CBO presentation two clicks away from the EK page I referenced) But since you clearly didn't do the search and see what I was talking about you wouldn't have known that.

Your description of CBO's chart is way off base. I encourage people (at least those who are interested enough to wade through blog comments) to do the search I suggested and see for themselves.

Your phrasing equates a reduction in the future rate of growth with a "cut." Most people don't think that way.

The US will continue to spend more on Medicare – just not as much more as if we had done nothing about health care. Calling it a "cut" is a good talking point for the GOP, but (like many talking points on both sides) doesn't convey an accurate sense of the policy choices being made.

Will Lee Terry campaign on a pledge not to reduce the rate of growth in Medicare expenses?

Many thanks to Tom White for his support of the fed stimulus program. The extra $787 billion (borrowed $$$) was promised to keep unemployment at 8%. It's now 9.9% and probably going higher. Thanks for adding $800 bil. to the national debt, Tom.

I do implore the rest of you to look at the chart. Pat is the one who is misinterpreting it. Either that or a $40 billion head start is not much money to him, but where I come from, that used to be a lot. That's the amount of head start that Obamacare gets from increased taxes. In addition, if you look at the CBO's estimated savings, Obamacare gets a $60 or 70 billion head start in the first three years. Again, maybe that's not much money anymore. The third thing to look at is that the overwhelming source of the "deficit reduction" from Obamacare according to the CBO comes from "savings." I'll believe it when I see it. That's the scam of Obamacare. There will be no savings anywhere in the bill, especially if democrats have anything to say about it. I won't even get into the false promise of being able to keep your healthcare coverage if you like it. Not with businesses already plotting to dump healthcare coverage and just pay the fine.

But then, the whole point of Obamacare never was to save money or improve care. The whole point is to gain control. Tom White thinks that's just fine and dandy.

Back on topic, ditto to all the people thanking Tom White for supporting all of the failed Democrat leadership positions on the economy, healthcare, energy, the Mae and the Mac, student loans, and stimulus.

Now, I am still waiting to hear whether he stands with the Congressional Democrat Leadership on abortion and immigration. Actually, I am just asking a question that someone posted on Tom White's Facebook a few weeks ago that he has yet to reply to.

Not knowing the difference between a credit card and a debit card isn't frugal, it is stupid.

This pudgy Forrest Gump votes on federal bills that threaten to plunge America into economic chaos. Perhaps he is so tired of his fame as slimiest politician in America that he's willing to play the role of Simple Jack.

I think the Ben Nelson ATM bit turned into a national story because it was fluffy and easy for the national press who prides themself on junk reporting to be devoured in volume by the masses as a way to increase their beloved ratings. A Senator who doesn't use an ATM? That's great theater. His position on the complicated stuff in the finance industry or hidden in bills dealing with same is one long snore to ignore when ratings are bottomline.

I think it bacame a national story because the msm is truly pissed at Nelson for being so ham-fisted that they lost Ted Kennedy's seat. They still think it's the messenger and not the message. The good news for Nelson is that they have no credibility and nobody cares what they think. The problem for Nelson is that he has no credibility and nobody cares what he thinks. The problem for the Republicans is that they'd better have a message and it better be credible if they are going to take advantage of Nelson's troubles. And by the way, not knowing how to use an ATM is NOT one of Nelson's troubles. The GOP should not get suckered into this. Stick to the issues.